In 452 Attila the Hun invaded Italy and was on the verge of conquering the entire peninsula. Then Pope Leo the Great went to intercede, met with Attila, and somehow convinced him to withdraw. A fifth century account of the meeting by Prosper of Aquitaine notes that Attila was impressed by the “high priest” and promised peace before withdrawing beyond the Danube River. A seventh century account by Paul the Deacon suggests that as the Pope stood before Attila, both Peter and Paul appeared, stood on either side of Leo, and raised swords over the Pontiff’s head while threatening Attila with death.
Okay, my guess is that you prefer Prosper’s account to Paul the Deacon’s story. First, you reason, Prosper wrote his account only a couple of years after the incident. Second, it’s a more human account. A humble and pious church leader beseeches a great conqueror impressed by the “high priest.”
The other story seems, you say, less realistic. First, you argue, it wouldn’t be in the nature of two apostles to threaten someone with death as Paul the Deacon writes (even though you recall that in the Garden of Gethsemane Simon Peter supposedly in defense of Jesus cut off the ear of Malchus with a sword). Second, you aren’t really the type to believe that two people long dead would suddenly appear, swords in hand, to back up a request for peace. That scene is too imitative of scenes from Indiana Jones and similar films with deus ex machina endings. No, you argue that Paul the Deacon, writing in the eighth century, was far too removed from the event and far too steeped in Middle-Ages thinking to be realistic.
Of course, I don’t know your preference. You might be inclined to accept Paul the Deacon’s account as historical. That certainly would be a dramatic meeting: Two founders of modern Christianity bearing swords in defense of a Pope. I’m inclined to believe that most people would prefer Prosper’s account. He was, after all, a contemporary of both Attila and Leo.
But there’s a reason beyond contemporaneity that I personally prefer Prosper’s story. I imagine Leo as a man of peace, not just inwardly, but outwardly as well. Some among us are just that. They exude peacefulness, and around them others become calm, more rational, more open to cooperation, and less inclined toward conflict.
You might disagree. You might prefer an outside imposition of peace by a third party—in this instance, two third-party spirits in the form of sword-bearing Peter and Paul. And you have good reason to argue thus: You recognize that regardless of the peacefulness of one person, another, more contentious person bent on conquering might not acquiesce. There are numerous historical and contemporary examples of innocent and peaceful people being cut down by other Attilas, just as the real Attila quashed the lives of many peaceful people in his path. Sometimes threats with swords impose peace.
Maybe those who prefer Prosper’s tale are unrealistic. Still, there’s that occasional example where peacefulness wins the day, where inner peace shapes the world around it.
Run into any Attilas lately? Try Prosper’s approach before you try Paul the Deacon’s.
Okay, my guess is that you prefer Prosper’s account to Paul the Deacon’s story. First, you reason, Prosper wrote his account only a couple of years after the incident. Second, it’s a more human account. A humble and pious church leader beseeches a great conqueror impressed by the “high priest.”
The other story seems, you say, less realistic. First, you argue, it wouldn’t be in the nature of two apostles to threaten someone with death as Paul the Deacon writes (even though you recall that in the Garden of Gethsemane Simon Peter supposedly in defense of Jesus cut off the ear of Malchus with a sword). Second, you aren’t really the type to believe that two people long dead would suddenly appear, swords in hand, to back up a request for peace. That scene is too imitative of scenes from Indiana Jones and similar films with deus ex machina endings. No, you argue that Paul the Deacon, writing in the eighth century, was far too removed from the event and far too steeped in Middle-Ages thinking to be realistic.
Of course, I don’t know your preference. You might be inclined to accept Paul the Deacon’s account as historical. That certainly would be a dramatic meeting: Two founders of modern Christianity bearing swords in defense of a Pope. I’m inclined to believe that most people would prefer Prosper’s account. He was, after all, a contemporary of both Attila and Leo.
But there’s a reason beyond contemporaneity that I personally prefer Prosper’s story. I imagine Leo as a man of peace, not just inwardly, but outwardly as well. Some among us are just that. They exude peacefulness, and around them others become calm, more rational, more open to cooperation, and less inclined toward conflict.
You might disagree. You might prefer an outside imposition of peace by a third party—in this instance, two third-party spirits in the form of sword-bearing Peter and Paul. And you have good reason to argue thus: You recognize that regardless of the peacefulness of one person, another, more contentious person bent on conquering might not acquiesce. There are numerous historical and contemporary examples of innocent and peaceful people being cut down by other Attilas, just as the real Attila quashed the lives of many peaceful people in his path. Sometimes threats with swords impose peace.
Maybe those who prefer Prosper’s tale are unrealistic. Still, there’s that occasional example where peacefulness wins the day, where inner peace shapes the world around it.
Run into any Attilas lately? Try Prosper’s approach before you try Paul the Deacon’s.
RSS Feed